Web 2.0, E-learning 2.0 and the new learning Stephen Downes Learning Technologies Conference January 30, 2008

Web 2.0: The Learning Network The intersection between the worlds for education, work, and home Key requirement is easy-to-use tools and hosting services* *E.g. the “e-Portfolio-as-blog” approach

Un… As in, unorganized As in not managed Unconference

Messy vs. Neat

User-Generated Content web-content-will-grow-rapidly-through-2010

Flow IM and SMS expanded – Twitter Facebook ‘status’ updates – the now RSS, podcasting and other content feeds Mode – the idea of flow – how do you survive in a world of constant change? Stop thinking of things as static

E-Learning 2.0 The idea is that learning is not based on objects and contents that are stored, as though in a library

Rather, the idea is that learning is like a utility - like water or electricity - that flows in a network or a grip, that we tap into when we want

Learner centered Learning is centered around the interests of the learner Learning is owned by the learner This implies learner choice of subjects, materials, learning styles

Immersive learning Learning by doing

Connected Learning The computer connects the student to the rest of the world Learning occurs through connections with other learners Learning is based on conversation and interaction

Game-based learning Types: Branching, Spreadsheet, Quiz Game, Simulation Lab…

Workflow (Informal) Learning Types: EPSS, Community of Practice, Environment, Visualization…

Mobile Learning Examples: Co-op learning, drill and flash-card, instant mesaging, field trips, resource capture (like this talk!)

First Iteration: User-Produced Media Blogs and Blogging Podcasting and Vodcasting Game mods and other multimedia

Web Core Technologies Tools for worldmaking…

Social Networking

Tagging

Asynchronous Javascript and XML (AJAX) Jesse James Garrett in February

Representational State Transfer (REST) - principles that outline how resources are defined and addressed - looser sense: domain-specific data over HTTP

Application Program Interface (API) and Mash-Ups

Javascript Object Notation (JSON)

OpenID

Identity The idea: identity as personal, not institutional You own your data Identity 2.0 – Dick Hardt OpenID

No More Walled Gardens Social and content networks distributed across services But also… importantly… the walls or institutions and corporations are also less important

Network Semantics Different Realities…

Why Networks? Nature of the knower: humans are more like networks Quality of the knowledge: groups are limited by the capacity of the leader Nature of the knowledge: group knowledge is transmitted and simple (cause-effect, yes-no, etc) while network knowledge is emergent and complex

Groups vs. Networks A group is a collection of entities or members according to their nature; what defines a group is the quality members possess and number A network is an association of entities or members via a set of connections; what defines a network is the extent and nature of this connectivity

Groups, Schools, Classes A group, in other words, is a school (of thought, of fish…) or a class of some sort. Or: classes and schools are just groups. They are defined as groups. Can we even think of schools – and of learning – without thinking at the same time of the attributes of groups?

A Group… A group is elemental, defined by mass and sameness – like an ingot of metal (Aside: democracy is a group phenomenon)

A Network… A network is diverse and changing, defined by interactions – like an ecosystem Can we achieve order, responsibility, identity in an ecosystem? Do we need the iron hand? (Aside: Solon, learning, justice)

The Semantic Principle Groups require unity, networks require diversity Groups require coherence, networks require autonomy Groups require privacy or segregation, networks require openness Groups require focus of voice, networks require interaction

Diversity Did the process involve the widest possible spectrum of points of view? Did people who interpret the matter one way, and from one set of background assumptions, interact with people who approach the matter from a different perspective?

Autonomy Were the individual knowers contributing to the interaction of their own accord, according to their own knowledge, values and decisions, Or were they acting at the behest of some external agency seeking to magnify a certain point of view through quantity rather than reason and reflection?

Openness Is there a mechanism that allows a given perspective to be entered into the system, to be heard and interacted with by others?

Connectivity Is the knowledge being produced the product of an interaction between the members, or is it a (mere) aggregation of the members' perspectives? A different type of knowledge is produced one way as opposed to the other.

Thanks! Stephen Downes